guildwarsfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Gravewit
Login Bug Please see GuildWiki:Software & Technical Issues/Bugs#Selecting skins prevents login as this is preventing registered users from logging in. --Rainith 15:06, 17 March 2006 (CST) : PanSola here, I haven't been able to log in due to the above bug. Please look into it when you have a chance, thanks! -67.172.181.206 20:28, 22 March 2006 (CST) ::This bug is still preventing me from logging in, so I'm bumping it again. At least some sort of response like "I took a look at the problem, and it looks like we will never ever be able to fix it" would let me know you have at least looked into the issue. Thanks. -24.7.179.183 03:38, 6 April 2006 (CDT) = PanSola ::: I really don't get this, not sure how to fix it. If I can't figure it out tonight, I'll have to call in the calvary. Gravewit 03:51, 6 April 2006 (CDT) :::: I suspect one of your nonstandard skins, most likely "monobook-google", defines the class SkinMonoBook instead of, say, SkinMonoBookGoogle, which causes MonoBook.php to barf. Should be a simple enough fix: just rename the class in the -google skin. F G 04:14, 6 April 2006 (CDT) Links to Amazon pre-order Just curious, any particular reason why links are being inserted to Amazon.com's pre-order, and none of the other sites offering it? Just wondering if there's a sponsorship issue, or if that was just the only one you had on hand. FYI: I did pre-order from amazon.com. Annoyingly, they show on the order status "Delivery estimate: May 4, 2006 - May 6, 2006", which pretty much makes the benefit have having access 24-hours early pretty useless. --Barek 04:06, 6 April 2006 (CDT) :I have removed that link from the article because it's un-wiki-like to advertise for anything in the articles themselves. If you wish to place an ad in the wiki side bar or even on the main page, that's your decision, but to change the articles so that they advertise for a specific vendor is not right. --Karlos 07:08, 6 April 2006 (CDT) ::I see that the only response we have gotten to our inquiries is a link to "Buy Factions" in our side bar that links to Amazon. Is it safe to assume that you are making money off of this and because you do not want to be held fiscally responsible to us you have just decided to ingore any questions on the matter? ::I checked the Oblivion Wiki and you did the same thing there. I hope you understand that no one is going to ask you for a cut from whatever money you are making. Fiscal Responsibility means transparency. Also, true leadership means you discuss issues, not just ignore questions you do not like. The same position that gives you the power to post that link on our sidebar, lays upon you the responsibility to answer our questions. --Karlos 02:00, 11 April 2006 (CDT) Fiscal Accountability Please respond to GuildWiki talk:Site support when you get a chance. --Karlos 07:40, 11 March 2006 (CST) Unused users I went through the user list one day and realized that it contains many user names which are and always have been unused. There are also users which are used for nothing else but spamming or advertising: "I offer this service, please contact me in-game". If it is possible to remove users, we could do a major cleanup. I am volunteering to go through the thousands of users. Any users with no contributions and those with only advertisement/spam/vandalism contributions would be marked for removal. A template similiar to the ban template should be created so that those users could just be tagged with it and then removed by someone who is able to do it. (After checking that the tag is correctly placed, all necessary links in the template) 16:01, 6 April 2006 (CDT) : Template:Unworthy :p 16:44, 6 April 2006 (CDT) :::P I'll make a template suggestion soon No, I am not bored. Really... Name will be Template:Removable user if no one comes up with a better name while I eat lunch. 16:56, 6 April 2006 (CDT) ::: Template:Inactive user maybe, or Template:Never active 17:03, 6 April 2006 (CDT) ::::Strongly disagreed. Space on the GuildWiki is conceptually infinite, and there is no benefit in this. Further, it is entirely possible that "unused" usernames are people who log in and use the Preferences page to change skins, adjust timestamps, etc. —Tanaric 17:20, 6 April 2006 (CDT) :::::Infinite? Maby. Free of costs? No. Doesn't removing even little things help? For a user who only uses the account to change skins it isn't a big thing to re-create the account after the wiki-wide purge. Almost everyone willing to create an account is also willing to contribute to the wiki and has done so by fixing smal typos etc. The biggest point in this is to clear the list of users which is a bloat with over 3500 users. I like to use it to look for nice user pages etc, but its a pain at the moment. Atleast the most obvious spam/vandal users should be removed. Also some user names are unused as the user made a typo in the name when creating it and created the correctly typed user name. 18:04, 6 April 2006 (CDT) ::::::Deleting users in MediaWiki is not a clean process. It requires brainjacking into the database and twiddling tables manually, if I recall correctly. We have a phrase for this in MIT: "too much overhead". Definitely not worth it for the quiet ones. F G 18:06, 6 April 2006 (CDT) :::::::If this is done in massed amounts I suppose it wouldn't be more troublesome. Aren't all the users located in the same tables, so that you could somehow do the removal process for them all at the same time? I don't know about the mediawiki system, but I doubt that it has been made too hard. Ofcourse if no one who is able to do this is willing to do the removal process we have no choice but to forget the whole thing. 18:14, 6 April 2006 (CDT) ::::::::Yes, I suppose some of that can be automated, but manually scraping the database is a pretty risky proposition. Remember, this is MySQL-- not the most reliable database engine. You'd have to lock down the wiki for the duration of this change just to be safe. (Yay FUD!) More importantly, the marginal benefit of a deleted user is one fewer entry in the "user" table and a possibly less cluttered list. I am not convinced that the benefit is worth the cost. But, if it must be done, an explanation of the process. F G 18:40, 6 April 2006 (CDT) ::::::::Also note this admonition from the MediaWiki FAQ: :::::::::Do not remove users from the user table in the mySQL database; this causes problems with other parts of the wiki due to the relational structure of the database. ::::::::Fun! F G 18:46, 6 April 2006 (CDT) :::::::::Doesn't seem too complicated, but yes, it would mean wiki downtime and some more work, so its up to Grave I suppose. I'll wait for his reply before doing anything. Maby this could be made at the same time with an update to new version of mediawiki. 1.6 is out now and it includes a few handy anti-spam things. :::::::::And what happens if we don't remove the users from the mysql database? Will they still be removed from the user list? 18:51, 6 April 2006 (CDT) :::::::::: To be honest, I don't see why it's a problem to keep them in the list. Gravewit 04:32, 7 April 2006 (CDT) :::::::::::Ok, lets forget it then. I suppose I can live with the huge list. And nice work on the new version. --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 07:40, 7 April 2006 (CDT) MediaWiki Version Please see GuildWiki:Software & Technical Issues/Bugs#MediaWiki Version 23:45, 6 April 2006 (CDT) Please also see GuildWiki:Software & Technical Issues/Bugs#Redirects not redirecting and GuildWiki:Software & Technical Issues/Bugs#Categories FUBAR. — Stabber (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2006 (CDT) Contact Yo, I tried e-mailing you when the servers were down and was told tat phil dot nelson at gmail dot com does not exist. Is this a temprary failure or should I switch to something else if I need to get in touch? Gracias. --Karlos 07:09, 9 April 2006 (CDT) : Should work fine. That is my address. I'm almost always aware when mySQL goes down, I just am not always in front of a computer. I have the server set to check every 30 mins, and S.M.S my cell phone if things go down. Gravewit 07:18, 9 April 2006 (CDT) Blank pages if not logged in People not logged in receive a blank page if trying to view normal articles or their discussion pages. Special pages and user pages work fine, so you can still log in and when logged in everything works fine. See User_talk:Rainith#Problem. --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 02:30, 6 May 2006 (CDT) I logged out and tried it. I get a server cache error message when accessing the main page. Everything works fine when logged in. --Karlos 05:15, 6 May 2006 (CDT) :User pages don't work when logged out although I said they work. My user page redirects to User:Gem/User_Page and the redirect works normally. --[[User:Gem|'Gem']] 05:37, 6 May 2006 (CDT) :: I had enabled using gzip, which for some reason caused this problem. It's disabled now, so should work for everyone again. Gravewit 09:28, 6 May 2006 (CDT) Wikipedia Article FYI: It appears that the article on Wikipedia about GameWikis that is currently linked from our Main Page is a candidate for deletion. They've attached a banner to it, and appear to be flagging it as not a notable website as yet, so they deem it not yet worthy of listing on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • ) - 10:27, 6 May 2006 (CDT) :It seems to be completely gone now. -- James Sumners 12:47, 17 May 2006 (CDT) Unbotting request Hi Gravewit, can you unbot "Stabbot" please? I've just completed the task for which I had initially requested bot status, and I don't forsee ever needing bot status again. Thanks. — Stabber ✍ 11:25, 10 May 2006 (CDT) Lots of database errors lately I have been receiving database errors a lot today. Sometimes refreshing helps, sometimes even multiple refreshes don't. I am able to access any page by clicking on the edit link (although this might sometimes cause an error too), but it is a bit frustrating, Database error A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "MediaWikiBagOStuff::_doquery". MySQL returned error "1030: Got error 127 from storage engine (localhost)". I hope something can and will be done soon. -- 12:49, 15 May 2006 (CDT) :I've been seeing these as well lately. Doing an "&action=purge" seems to fix this whenever it comes up. --161.88.255.140 13:07, 15 May 2006 (CDT) Amazon link Unlike most people here it seems, I'm actually for the amazon link to buy Factions in the nav bar (just about the least freakin' intrusive sort of advertisement). In fact I think you ought to stick a link in there to buy the regular version of GW too. True most people visiting here probably already have it (most probably have Factions now too anyway), but I was talking to a guy in game today who just had Factions, so it might get a few hits and bring in a tiny bit of change. Just my $0.02. --Rainith 21:48, 16 May 2006 (CDT) Not a bad idea. Gravewit 09:13, 17 May 2006 (CDT) Adbrite Yuck >_<". Way too intrusive. -PanSola, Table of The Lyssa Advocacy Front (sing) 09:40, 17 May 2006 (CDT) Why do we need them?? People want to donate but can't.. you need to keep us better informed about whats going on =( Skuld 09:46, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :All I can say is: whiskey tango foxtrot??? --Tetris L 10:29, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::Have these already been turned off? I'm not seeing them ... --161.88.255.140 11:08, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::Okay, now I'm seeing them. I must say, anything that breaks the fundamental concepts of hypertext links comes accross as underhanded and deceptive. If I see something displaying as a hypertext link, it should behave as one. Not be a means of sneaking an ad in my face. Any site using these will likely suffer from a lowerred reputation. --161.88.255.140 11:47, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :::On a slightly related note I'm glad guildwiki cares about my ringer tone and wants me to 'pimp' it. (T/ ) 11:57, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::IntelliTXT is the worst thing to hit the web since Flash. -- James Sumners 12:45, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :::ARG! Even that website is annoying. It resized my browser and made me lose 20 minutes of work clicking on the wrong X. (T/ ) 13:02, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::::It loaded a blank page for me. Not sure if Adblock, Spybot SD, Firefox, or a combination thereof saved me. Oh yeah I ad-blocked adbrite. Google ad on the side is something I can live with (though I missed the old days when they were just plain text instead of rich text). Adbrite is just way too annoying. Firefox actually kept complainging about a javascript taking too long to run and keep asking me if I want to stop it or continue before I ad-blocked adbrite. -PanSola, Table of The Lyssa Advocacy Front (sing) 13:14, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :::::Gotta join in and voice my disgust with this change. Too intrusive. The content of the articles never should be mucked up by advertisements. --Draygo Korvan 14:03, 17 May 2006 (CDT) Let me just chime in here: I don't currently see the AdWords (or IntelliTXT or whateever it is called), and it is obvious that either you or Nunix is currently messing with the advertisements on the site (as the side bar has just changed, again). But let me make this perfectly clear: I don't like the ads on the left. I hate the ads at the bottom of the page (I did not speak out against them, however, because I had to weigh the negatives against the positives). But I completely, utterly detest AdWords and similar advertisement-pushing tactics. If you need bandwidth, if you need mirrors, if you need donations: Say so. But please rethink this strategy, and scale back rather than add on more adverts. If AdWords become a part of GuildWiki,' I am gone'. And I am sure I'm not the only contributor who feels this way. Please don't force my hand on this. --Bishop (rap| ) 15:22, 17 May 2006 (CDT) Another point to note: I am pretty sure nc-sa disallows this form of commercial usage. Not being the author of most of these articles, I am fairly certain you cannot yourself go around the nc-sa. 70.17.174.74 15:36, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :The text of by-nc-sa reads: You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. :A lawyer for CC said (from here): The relevant factor to consider is whether the entity making use of the work has profit as its primary motive. :The goal of the wiki isn't to make Gravewit money. That being said, he's the one that gets to show us the donation tally/site costs, which haven't been updated in forever. I'm not implying he's cheating us, but I think the numbers need to be known. --68.142.14.151 16:10, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::(someone posted before me on this, but I'm insisting on getting past the posting conflicts and getting this in) Looking at the full text of the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, I don't see anything specifically barring this as there is no requirement to view the ads, and they do not prevent the viewing of the content and the content is still freely available. From what I can see, the license would view these no differently than site banner ads. ::That said, I pretty much agree with Bishop. The side ads I can live with, I understand the need. The ads at the bottom I could tollerate, although their placement within the article block was misleading and did need to be moved. But the use of Adbrite which shows artificial hyperlinks is absolutely intollerable. I will not say yet that I will leave the Wiki, but I will seriously consider it if the adbrite ads remain if there is no user option to disable them. --161.88.255.140 16:19, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :::I was talking specifically about the ads that change the text of articles, not the ones to the side and bottom, which I don't have serious objections to. The claim that I can "choose not to view" the ads that change the text is disingenuous, as it requires me to write user CSS or use Adblock to prevent them from being shown to me. Yes, I consider the greenified double underlink to be part of the advertisement. 70.17.174.74 16:44, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::::Technically, the text is not modified, although the font color is changed and a double underline is added. The content is still the same. As for viewing it, the ads only show if your mouse points at one of these faked links; so it's not a requirement of viewing the page. I do agree that on some pages these links are so frequent that it's extremely difficult to do anything on the page without triggering one, but they are technically still optionally viewable. ::::Don't get me wrong, I still hate the little intrusive things; but I don't see the licence as being an issue in this. --161.88.255.140 16:53, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :::::Further clarification of my point: I consider changing the text of the article from what the author(s) reasonably intended (and I consider wiki to HTML translation part of the authors' intention) to one where certain parts are now linked to advertisements to be a violation of the "nc" part of by-nc-sa. For ads to the side and bottom, a reasonable claim can be made that they are not part of the article itself but merely part of the presentation. This is not the case with these text-mogrifying advertisements. Another point: the by-nc-sa notes that modifications to the work should themselves be licensed under an identical license. Are the advertisements themselves covered by by-nc-sa? 70.17.174.74 17:03, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::I disagree, the text remains. Regardless of if it's a link or not does not change the intended meaning of the authors work. Regardless, the link above to the lawyer's opinion is relevant: ::::::Just to clarify a topic that has been the subject of some discussion on this list over recent days - the intended meaning of non-commercial as drafted in the CC-NC licenses is any use in a for-profit environment. The drafting of the license was intended to avoid any distinctions based on whether money changed hands or a profit was actually made. The relevant factor to consider is whether the entity making use of the work has profit as its primary motive. ::::::I do not see profit as a primary motive. For both that reason and my comment on the authors meaning not being changed, I do not see these ads as a licence issue. ::::::On a side note, it pains me to defend these ads, as I trully hate them; I just see the licence question as not being relevant here. --161.88.255.140 17:18, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :::::::What about my new point that the advertisements may not be licensed under an identical license? On reflection, that is a much stronger license-related objection than the nc aspect, on which you might be correct. 70.17.174.74 17:22, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::::That goes back to my comment that the authors original meaning is not changed by the insertion of a link. If the ad links changed that meaning, or in any way prevented or was a requirement of viewing the author's work, then I would agree. As it stands, I don't see the licence applying to these ads anymore than they apply to banner ads on the site. --161.88.255.140 17:25, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :::::::::I suppose this is an irreconcilable difference on opinion then. In my view, if an author intends for there to be a link, then he uses one of the several available linking facilities in the Wiki code. There is an implicit understanding that there will be no links except where they have been explicitly inserted. In any case, authors' intention does not enter into the fact of modifications of the article having to be distributable under an identical license. 70.17.174.74 17:33, 17 May 2006 (CDT) script {display:none} on userpage/monobook.css (User:Skuld/monobook.css) if this becomes used.. Skuld 15:41, 17 May 2006 (CDT) :Or simply do a google search for "NoAd hosts" and install that host file. I see none of these so called advertisements. --Rainith 15:59, 17 May 2006 (CDT) ::I refuse to install any workarounds, even if there are any available. That would solve the problem for me, but not for GuildWiki. I want these green links (and even more so the mouse-over pop-up windows) GONE from this wiki! I see that ads are required to pay for the server hosting, and I wouldn't even mind if Gravewit makes a few dollars with this site (which I doubt), but ... please ... not this way. I wouldn't mind a few more ads or banners in the side bar or in the header/footer. But ads in the middle of the text are plain disgusting. >:[ --Tetris L 02:20, 18 May 2006 (CDT) I can't see them anywhere. Where are they? -- 02:30, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :Gaaah! Now there is an advertisement in my advertisement on my user page! I need to reword it. -- 04:08, 18 May 2006 (CDT) It seems that opera protected me from this utter crap, but when I change to IE, the adds look utterly disgusting. Wikis life of the concept of linking to meaningful relevant content, not commercial adds. The fact that donations are disabled while this sort of intrusive adds are put onto the wiki makes me ask: Where is this wiki going to? I love to help the community out, but I will definitly not be volunteer part of some moneymaking project. --Xeeron 04:28, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :Aha, thats it. I have opera on my own computer, but Firefox at work. That's why I saw them now the first time. -- 04:41, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::Hmmm, I was searching for green links in articles all last night. I'm still not seeing them this morning, and I'm using IE. Must be one of my security programs protecting me (not sure which one - not using AdBlock, not using 'NoAD Hosts', I'll need to experiment and see which one does block it). I can say that if I saw what is being described, I would be utterlly discusted by it. Enough so that I would be tempted to offer an ultimatum of leaving the wiki. I am bothered that other Wiki users are seeing them, as this type of advertising will drive contributors and site visitors away. Please, for the good of the wiki, remove the adbrite ads entirely. --- Barek (talk • ) - 07:56, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :::They look like this in FireFox (Opera does indeed block them, intentionally or not): The fact that they're on top of Gems own advertising leads to much hilarity, but is beside the point. --Bishop (rap| ) 08:12, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::Ah, I found it - my firewall had an entry to block all activity to/from http://*.adbrite.com/*. Once I removed that block, I could see the ads, and I couldn't put the block back in place fast enough! Oddly, the block was a manual one, so I must've had reason to block them in the past. I don't recall seeing these types of ads before, so it may have just been a pre-emptive block I added at some point. ::Now that I see them, I can say that I agree with everyone here in saying that this type of advertising is completely without merit, and needs to be eliminiated from the site as soon as possible. This sort of thing will drive away site traffic, only a fool would belive otherwise. --- Barek (talk • ) - 08:45, 18 May 2006 (CDT) Time to Walk the Walk I am extremely pessimistic on this issue, as I believe that a fundamental "shift" in policy took place (several months ago, and without our knowledge), in how this site is being run and what it aims to do. That said, I do not beat around the bush. Sir Gravewit, you did a great deed by starting this project. You have done an admirable job leading this effort for the first 6-8 months. Since then however, you have gradually refused to be questioned, and acted incredibly childishly when you have been put in uncomfortable situations (not responding, cussing, telling people to leave if they don't like it). I ask you now to please reconsider the current course of action in which this wiki is headed. You are slowly turning this into some money making franchise for yourself (or your gamewikis establishment). More importantly, during that debate over your powers, you have shown great immaturity and lack of wisdom in handling the demands of being the leader of this wiki. At this juncture, it is not enough (for me) that you (all of a sudden) decide to respond to these messages and make people feel good. Most of them are probably less pessimistic than me about this. I believe it is time you addressed the bigger issues of how accountable are you to us and how much is this a wiki and how much is it Phil's money making thing. I personally question your ability to lead this endeavor, and would much rather see you step down and give leadership to Tanaric. He is wiser, much wiser, than you and he would work well with you, maintaining your authority over all things technical but also providing leadership for us when we need it (not pressng the mute button) and providing/enforcing guidelines on how much this is a money making enterprise. At this juncture, I am fairly certain that, even if you do grace the others with a response, you will not respond to this and once again hope that it "blows over." But I am nearly fed up with all of this. I can see where this is going, and have for the past 4 months. I have warned people many times and only now people are starting to realize what is going on. The scenario I see is that this will keep going down hill, at some point, Tanaric will leave, then it will REALLY start going down hill, because he provides leadership for these contributors in place of the vacuum that is your leadership. Your idea of leadership is: I'm the boss, I get the final say, other than that, you guys keep doing what you're doing. Tanaric understands the importance of looking after the community, not just the pages. After this, it's really anyone's guess. Flame wars, Gem and PanSola go open a rival wiki and copy content there, :) then you sue them, then both sites lose most of their readership due to quarrels. You have an ultimatum, sir, either we begin (collectively as a group, you don't have to answer my specific questions) discussions on what is going on, get more transparency and start to define your role in this organization, soon, or I will just leave. The deadline for starting this discussion is the end of next week. May 28th, if you are stil linvoking the Shroud of Silence, I will leave, for good. I will not stick around and pour another minute into the "Gravewit retirement fund." Not when you will not even acknowledge my existence. :) So, in the spirit of the NBA playoffs going on right now, the deadline is May 28th, ball is in your hands, 10 days on the shot clock... Your move. --Karlos 07:01, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :*speechless* Omg. what to say? I would miss you a lot. Thanks anyway for trusting me :P (or something), but I don't think that I would be opening any 'rival' wiki. I hope this wiki will make it through all the rough times, but if not, I need to find a new hobby. :( -- 07:13, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :Hey Karlos, so if Gem and I do end up starting each of our own rival wikis (or did you mean we working together on one single rival wiki?), will you drop by? d-: -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 07:19, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :A fork of the GuildWiki is not such a terrible idea, in my opinion. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons. 149.9.0.25 07:23, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::I don't have to post anonymously to say that. In fact, I feel that defeats the purpose. The wiki content, every single user-posted-contribution, is avilable under the by-nc-sa provisions of the Creative Commons license. This means that if Gamewikis is no longer able to competently handle the destribution of said content, it is possible for the community to start up a mirror project. All that's needed are willing participants with enough (non-commercial) resources and technical skill to make it happen. --Bishop (rap| ) 08:01, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :::Hey hey hey, don't get a good wiki with lots of work behind it get destroyed. Please, I enjoy my time here and don't want to get all my work here destroyed. I am sure we can work this out, just wait for Gravewit to answer. (Btw, wiki causes my browser lag spikes now :( ) -- 08:14, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::::I thought you knew me better than to suggest I was trying to destroy anything. Anyway, that's the last thing on my mind. By far, my preference would be for Gravewit to come to his senses, remove the AdBrite, and start talking to the contributors again. I am merely saying that even if the actions (or inactions) of the sysops end up cratering GuildWiki, the work -- and the community! -- could still carry on, somewhere else. --Bishop (rap| ) 08:38, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :::::It is meaningless to even talk about forking unless you have access to the MySQL database (at least the cur tables) that serve the pages of the Wiki. Lacking that, it is a purely academic question as to whether there should be a fork or not. How are you going to do it? Wget? That is not feasible for the 23,000 pages in the database, or even the 8000 or so pages with actual content. If the Wiki is really making Gravewit lots of money, then he has no reason to make the forking easier by publishing an SQL dump; if he isn't, then the problem in this instance is that the ads are intrusive, and he might be persuaded to remove them. The real issue is that Gravewit and Nunix are, by any reasonable standard, inactive in the Wiki. A leadership vacuum is not good for the health of the GuildWiki user community. 217.172.49.89 09:14, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::You're obviously a tech, not a politician. And while I applaud your attention to technical detail, it is entirely inconsequential for the time being. We're still talking about the hows, whos and whys. Let me make this clear: I am not at this point recommending even looking into the option of forking Guildwiki. We're not yet at a stage where that should be nessecary, at all. I'll tell you this, though: It can be done. Of course it can. Pretty much anything is technically possible, given enough incentive and resources. Why should this be any different? Hell, 8,000 articles can be moved by hand by a few volounteers with a few weeks on their hands, if they are so inclined. But there is bound to be more efficient solutions as well, including wget and a small shell script. --Bishop (rap| ) 09:30, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :Karlos has a way of putting things into inpolite words, when maybe more polite words would have done better, but his point is straight on. For all the good things done a year ago when the wiki was started, right now, there is a huge problem of leadership. This begins with the fact that the 2 people up at the top (Gravewit & Nunix) are not included in the everyday wiki life anymore. Check out their contributions , . Nunix has 3(!) contributions since the begin of april, Gravewit on average less than 1 per day (and almost 100% of these on either main page or Software&Technical Issues/Bugs). It is justified to say that the "leadership" has become detached from the rest of the contributers. Just look at all the negative comments above, obviously the main sentiment about adds on the wiki is very opposed to the actions taken. :To aggravate the issue, there is a very serious lack of communication. There is 0 discussion about issues beforehand and close to 0 information after they are implemented. That is not the way wikis work. Why? Because everyone here is not a paid employee who can be told what to do, but a volunteer, who will only contribute if taken seriously. So whoever takes decisions at the top of a group of volunteers, needs to listen to these guys or (ultimatively) they will walk away. It was quite clear to everyone reading the talk pages that a lot of people were unhappy about the introduction of the bottom-page google adds, yet we got 0 response about this concern. Instead another, much more intrusive, add gets introduced. That should detachment (or worse, disrespect) for the users. Gravewit, you should either be willing to spend more time around here, talking with people and explaning stuff, or you should indeed consider Karlos suggestion of appointing someone else who is. --Xeeron 08:18, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::He did reply to the issue of ads at the bottom of the page almost as soon as he was questioned on them. See GuildWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_3#Seeing_new_advertisement_links. Not justifying it, but saying we got zero reply is disingenuous. --24.19.168.170 08:54, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::Know what happened the last time we took a "hands on" approach to leadership? Karlos got pissed and stirred up a lot of hate. Know what's happened since we backed way off? Karlos got pissed and is joining in the hate. I've had some sporadic connection issues, and we've both got lives, but generally if you say something on one of our Talk: pages we see it. There is TOO MUCH GOING ON for ANYONE to keep track of it all and still have, you know, any free time at all. Maybe that's okay for some folk, but not so much me. There was a problem with the ads; it got fixed (I assume -- I've never seen any of this stuff?). When there are other problems, or things needing attention.. use our Talk: pages. If for some reason it goes unanswered, bug Tanaric, cos he has our email addresses and such. We're not out of touch, but the last time we got involved with anything directly there was all kinds of crying and gnashing of teeth. Hell, I don't even want to post -this- because I have difficulty believing it'll make a difference; too many years spent online, and I know how fun and easy it is to avoid real discussion and go with vitriolic raving (there, doing it myself now). Make up your minds, people, and understand the consequences of your desires. --Nunix 11:13, 20 May 2006 (CDT) :::Sir Nunix, two points to address here: :::a) Gravewit has been "dodging" questions. Anyone who thinks otherwise need only scroll to the top of this very talk page, see the sections about the Amazon link and the Fiscal Accountability section. Find me Gravewit's response. Those two requests have been languishing there for a couple of months now. Prove me wrong, answer them. :::b) So, you either ignore us completely or you go ahead and change things without telling anyone or consulting with anyone? There is no in-between? Let me help you: :::Things to do as a wiki leader between "Completely Ignoring Everyone" and "Changing Things As You Like With No Consultation": :::*Contribute. (Duh) :::*Hold monthly meetings with regular contributors (perhaps using a private forum or even in-game) to update them on the status of the wiki as well as future plans. :::*Post monthly updates (if meetings are a bother) on a GuildWiki domain page. :::*Answer the Fiscal Accountability questions. :::*Work on special status with ANet so that we can get funding/special information from them. Wouldn't it be cool if we got to play the next version of GW a week before everyone else so we can fill in the critical info on locations and missions so that when the game comes out people are not totally lost? :::*Work on translation projects for this wiki. :::*... Add more here ... :::--Karlos 17:35, 20 May 2006 (CDT) :::Seems in this discussion that everyone that said they do not see the advertisements suddenly see them. So I will not say I see them or not, so I don't get jinxed. :P I agree this Adbrite is abrasive and side bar and bottom banners should bring in more than enough capital to fund this site. I am shocked to see no ledger like there used to be with the donations page. Expenditures, donations, etc. I am one of the most paranoid people you will ever meet and although I do not think anything sneaky is going on, I think the hardworking contributors of this site should not be kept in the dark about these sort of things, nor have to deal with obviously aggravating ads. People, including myself, are willing to donate should money be tight enough to resort to low-life ads. One question, has Gravewit or Nunix even responded to this discussion yet or is everyone's opinions just falling on deaf ears? --Gares Redstorm 09:05, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :: I'm not sure what's up with the inline ads, there shouldn't be any of those. I will have to ask adbrite what the hell is going on, as I don't see them. It could be adbrite's code is bad. There's a lot to respond to here, and I simply don't have time at this very moment. The content on all gamewikis sites is and will always be free for all to access. We're trying to parlay the success here into something bigger, more sites, a bigger resource. It's not easy. It's not cheap. It's not quick. Gravewit :::Another point: Querying the adbrite site freezes Firefox and takes a while, and applying the ads to the text also takes siginificant time. This actually makes using and editing the site labourious. What the hell? Shandy 09:32, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::: I believe the adbrite inline ads show up every other page load or so. I'm ad-blocking it though, so I don't see it at all anymore. But I also deeply worry about the negative impact the inline ads have on the professionality of presentation of GuildWiki. -PanSola, LAFTable (sing) 09:35, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::::Yup, my browser sometimes froze for short periods while in work. The ads however do not show always, more often they don't than they do. I hope everyone is fine now that Gravewit answered and hopefully he will have more time for us soon. -- 09:36, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :::::Gravewit, for now you should remove adbrite from being able to advertise on this site. The worst thing about this is is that it is even INVADING EDIT BOXES. UGH! Especially get rid of that adbrite advertise with us link. --Draygo Korvan 11:42, 18 May 2006 (CDT) Gravewit, you like this? Oh look, adbrite is invading the edit boxes: --Draygo Korvan 11:47, 18 May 2006 (CDT) :: Completely aside from the above issues, I was completely not aware of the inline ads. I don't see them, so I am wondering if it maybe something with our caching server. I am contacting adbrite right now. I agree that this is intolerable, and I'd never use these inline things on purpose. Gravewit :::Perhaps you have http://*.adbrite.com on your personal firewall/hostfile etc blocklist? That would explain why you do not see the links when we do. Oh a quick note, can you block www.virgoods.com (Guild wars gold seller) from the google ads, apperently they just started advertising through google. --Draygo Korvan 11:54, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::::By the way the green links only show up when the sponsers bar (on the left) gets its ads from adbrite. When it is a google ad, green links will not show up. --Draygo Korvan 11:57, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::::: Yes, AdBrite is testing a new inline ads thing, apparently I had to opt-out. I was not aware of this. www.virgoods.com is now on the block list. Gravewit 14:47, 18 May 2006 (CDT) ::::::Hrm just saw another virgoods ad, most likely it just takes a bit for google to filter it out because you just blocked it. Anyway, thanks for fixing that issue, it was annoying. Now back to our regularly scheduled editing. --Draygo Korvan 14:52, 18 May 2006 (CDT) Thanks for looking into that and resolving it so quickly. Those AdBrite links were atrocious. I hope this little tirade on your talk page wasn't too discouraging... --Spot 16:53, 18 May 2006 (CDT) thru This is not a word. Please, for the sake of my sanity, change this to "through" in the spam prevention message. -- James Sumners 13:59, 17 May 2006 (CDT) GW gold ads Could you please block the GW and D2 gold ads from the google ads. Atleast the following come up: www.guildwarsplatinum.com, www.GainGame.com, www.virgoods.com, www.3dsvs.com, www.Jonasd2.com, www.vritems.com. My and PanSolas user pages get these ads every time, probably many other pages too. Thanks in advance. -- 06:35, 23 May 2006 (CDT)